Travelling in space = travelling in time ?

I was thinking about that because I got an idea about rotating universes :

What if in fact, the universe (galaxies) we can see inside telescope was an illusion ? In fact, we know it's an illusion, because the lights
travelled for centuries and even more for the farer deep space objects, and so, these object are in fact not where we seem to observe them, and
sometimes, in fact, these object have disapeared for centuries when them light come to us.

But, what if, in fact, these far objects we can see was not foreigns galaxies, but a "ghost" image of our galaxy ?

I know this idea can be disapointing, because it put in answer all our conception of the universe. The universe would be smaller than we think. And,
in fact, travelling in space would be equal to travelling in time (like in the Kubrick movie

)...
I know that some scientists are still thinking about this theory. I discussed that with an indian scientist, who told me that he had also this idea,
refering to some BAGAVAD-GHITA scripture and explanation of the universe.

So the Andromeda galaxy for example, which is way more bigger than our own galaxy, would be a mirrored image of milkyway? The fact is also that this
galaxy is closing on our's and colliding with us far in the future, not moving away from us which many other galaxies do. Now, if all the other
galaxies would be images of milkyway in it's previous states, wouldn't there be a clear mathematically explainable pattern in the sky? Just a
thought.

Yes, that's why scientist thinks that it's not all galaxies, but maybe the universe is smaller than we think.

But I like this idea, I mean : Nothing's real, universe is an illusion...

Andromeda is the nearest major galaxy to our own Milky Way Galaxy. Our Galaxy is thought to look much like Andromeda. Together these two galaxies
dominate the Local Group of galaxies. The diffuse light from Andromeda is caused by the hundreds of billions of stars that compose it. The several
distinct stars that surround Andromeda's image are actually stars in our Galaxy that are well in front of the background object. Andromeda is
frequently referred to as M31 since it is the 31st object on Messier's list of diffuse sky objects. M31 is so distant it takes about two million
years for light to reach us from there. Much about M31 remains unknown, including why the center contains two nuclei.

But maybe, andromeda has disapeared since 1 milion years, we can't know, what we can see from here is not andromeda actually, but andromeda 2
milions years ago...

I believe we already had a thread where we came to the conclusion that Time is mearly a way to measure movement Moving in space is thus movement in
time as well. How fast you move in space equates to how far you move forward in time. The problem with moving backwards in time comes from the
simple fact that there is no opposite of moving. Not the opposite of moving in the sense of no movement or standing still but in the negative of
movement.

Maybe I'm missunderstanding something here, and you can clear it up for me, but this doesn't seem to make much sense.

When you say "but a "ghost" image of our galaxy" I'm assuming you mean a reflection? But then the question is what causes the light to reflect
back to us and also why would some images reflects back sooner and some later (ie. different distances between glaxaies in the universe)?

I think a better definition of what you are calling a "ghost" image is needed because right now this doesn't make any sense.

Einstein already beat you to it, but because of your lack of understanding of the real Universe you have gone off on some horrible and moronic
tangent. This is why someone going the speed of light will not age as much as a stationary observer.

You thought that was just an illusion too? No....they will not age as much.

Originally posted by FreeMason
because of your lack of understanding of the real Universe you have gone off on some horrible and moronic tangent.

Parole d'expert*...

*Word of an expert...

[edit on 6-8-2004 by Nans DESMICHELS]

You didn't understood anything of what I meant :

I meant that the universe we see is not real but an image...

[edit on 6-8-2004 by Nans DESMICHELS]

The problem i got is that my idea would work in an organised universe model, but the model we have actually is chaotic.

[edit on 6-8-2004 by Nans DESMICHELS]

But in fact, if you clearly consider about my explanations above, this would mean that :
is totally biased. Because the objects described on this near universe (a few bilions year/lights) have certainly moved, and for some disapears since
milions years.

In fact, we know it's an illusion, because the lights travelled for centuries and even more for the farer deep space objects, and so, these object
are in fact not where we seem to observe them, and sometimes, in fact, these object have disapeared for centuries when them light come to us.

We are basically looking out from the bottom of a funnel. And, as you said, some of the lights we see no longer have an existing source.

I believe we already had a thread where we came to the conclusion that Time is mearly a way to measure movement Moving in space is thus movement in
time as well. How fast you move in space equates to how far you move forward in time.

Hmmm, but as an object moves closer to the speed of light, time slows down around the object as seen from an outside reference point. Or maybe
that's what you meant.

Yes, my idea was more poetic than scientific. The idea of having an eye on our past and future when we look at stars, I mean...

But scientifics explains that in fact, the universe could be smaller than we think : We could see in fact more objects than there are really, because
some of these objects could have been recorded twice or more... You follow me ?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.